Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
RITU BAHRI, C.J., RAKESH THAPLIYAL, J.
M/s Logic Plus Plus Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
THDC India Ltd. – Respondent
Appeal From Order No. 327 of 2023
Decided On : 27-09-2024
(A) Limitation Act, 1963 - Provisions regarding strict adherence to limitation periods in arbitration proceedings - Commercial Courts Act, 2015 - Section 13(1A) - Appeal dismissed due to a delay of 445 days in filing, as no sufficient grounds for condonation were established. (Paras 2, 3, 4)
(B) Arbitration Act, 1996 - Appeals under Section 37 governed by Articles 116 and 117 of the Limitation Act - Delay beyond specified periods can only be condoned in exceptional circumstances. (Paras 3)
Facts of the case:
The appellant challenged the judgment of the Additional District Judge regarding an arbitration award, but the appeal was dismissed due to a significant delay in filing.
Findings of Court:
The court found no justification for condoning the delay of 445 days, adhering to strict limitation provisions.
Issues: The main issue was whether the delay in filing the appeal could be condoned under the applicable laws.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that delays in arbitration appeals must be strictly governed by the Limitation Act, and only exceptional cases warrant condonation.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
RITU BAHRI, C.J.
1. The appellant has come up in appeal against the judgment dated 26.10.2021, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Commercial, Dehradun in Arbitration Case No. 113 of 2018, as well as the award dated 25.09.2018, passed by the learned sole Arbitrator.
2. At this stage, a reference can be made to an order dated 21.03.2024, passed by this Court in Appeal from Order No. 406 of 2022, State of Uttarakhand & others vs. Sandesh Kumar and connected matters, where on account of the delay, the appeal filed by the State has been dismissed simply on the ground that the provisions of Limitation Act are to be followed very strictly in the arbitration proceedings.
3. One such judgment of the Division Bench of this Court was rendered in Appeal from Order No. 127 of 2021, State of Uttarakhand & others vs. M/s Hillways Constructions Company Pvt. Ltd. decided on 07.03.2022, wherein after examining the provisions of Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, which only provides condonation of delay of 30 days and 60 days, the application for condonation of delay of 85 days was dismissed, taking note of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in Government of Maharashtra (Water Resources Department) represented by Executive Engineer Vs. Borse Brothers Engineers and Contractors Pvt. Ltd. (2021) 6 SCC 460, wherein in Paragraph No. 63, it has been held as under:
“Given the aforesaid and the object of speedy disposal sought to be achieved both under the Arbitration Act and the Commercial Courts Act, for appeals filed under section 37 of the Arbitration Act that are governed by Articles 116 and 117 of the Limitation Act or section 13(1-A) of the Commercial Courts Act, a delay beyond 90 days, 30 days or 60 days, respectively, is to be condoned by way of exception and not by way of rule. In a fit case in which a party has otherwise acted bona fide and not in a negligent manner, a short delay beyond such period can, in the discretion of the court, be condoned, always bearing in mind that the other side of the picture is that the opposite party may have acquired both in equity and justice, what may now be lost by the first party’s inaction, negligence or laches.”
4. In the present case, the delay is 445 days, and keeping in view the detailed judgment passed by this Court and no case for condoning the delay is made out, the present appeal is dismissed accordingly.
5. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.
AI
Strict adherence to limitation periods in arbitration appeals is mandatory, with delays only condoned in exceptional circumstances.
The Court held that the 60-day limitation for appeals under the Arbitration Act is strict and can only be extended in exceptional cases where sufficient cause is demonstrated, which was not establish....
The court established that the limitation period for appeals under the Arbitration Act is 60 days as per the Commercial Courts Act, but delays can be condoned based on sufficient cause, including rel....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the doctrine of condonation of delay should be applied judiciously, taking into account the circumstances and the impact of external factors s....
The court established that delays in appeals under the Arbitration Act are to be strictly limited, with condonation only in exceptional circumstances where compelling reasons are provided.
Timely filing of appeals under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is crucial; bureaucratic delays are inadequate reasons for condoning significant delays.
The court may condone delays in filing appeals where sufficient cause is shown, including circumstances beyond a party's control, advocated particularly in light of unprecedented events like a pandem....
(1) Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 can be invoked and applied to condone delay under Commercial Courts Act, 2015.(2) Law of Limitation is for general welfare that a period be put to litigation – R....
(1) Condonation of delay under Section 5 of Limitation Act has to be seen in context of object of speedy resolution of disputes. Section 5 of Limitation Act will apply to appeals, both by virtue of S....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
